Challenges of patient‐led mental health services to psychoanalytic clinicians

This paper considers implications to psychoanalytic psychotherapy of the British Government's decision to implement a patient choice agenda for state‐funded mental health services in England and Wales. It places the patient choice agenda in the context of consumerist society and argues that the complex nature of psychoanalytic psychotherapy leaves it more vulnerable than other psychological therapy modalities to compete in the current reality of ‘consumer’‐led public mental health, which, in turn reflects a profoundly changed social context from that to which psychoanalysis traces its roots. Unless psychoanalytic clinicians recognize and find ways to adjust to this context they will jeopardize the survival of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in an increasingly market‐orientated model of mental healthcare provision in the public sector, eager to promote more ‘consumer friendly’ psychological therapy models.     

Can Competition Ever be Fair? Challenging the Standard Prejudice

In this paper, we challenge the usual argument which says that competition is a fair mechanism because it ranks individuals according to their relative preferences between effort and leisure. This argument, we claim, is very insufficient as a justification of fairness in competition, and we show that it does not stand up to scrutiny once various dynamic aspects of competition are taken into account. Once the sequential unfolding of competition is taken into account, competition turns out to be unfair even if the usual fairness argument is upheld. We distinguish between two notions of fairness, which we call U-fairness, where U stands for the usual fairness notion, and S-fairness, where S stands for the sequential aspect of competition. The sequential unfairness of competition, we argue, comprises two usually neglected aspects connected with losses of freedom: first of all, there is an eclipse of preferences in the sense that even perfectly calculating competitors do not carry out a trade-off between effort and ranking; and second, competitive dynamics leads to single-mindedness because the constraints on the competitors choices always operate in the sense of increased competitiveness and, therefore, in the direction of an increased effort requirements. We argue (1) that competition is S-unfair even if it is U-fair, (2) that as S-unfairness increases, the ethical relevance of U-fairness itself vanishes, so that (3) by focusing as they usually do on U-fairness alone, economists neglect a deeper aspect of unfairness.     

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) holding on to memories: response competition causes retroactive interference effects

Five experiments on honeybees examined how the learning of a second task interferes with what was previously learned. Free flying bees were tested for landmark-based memory in variations on a paradigm of retroactive interference. Bees first learned Task 1, were tested on Task 1 (Test 1), then learned Task 2, and were tested again on Task 1 (Test 2). A 60-min delay (waiting in a box) before Test 2 caused no performance decrements. If the two tasks had conflicting response requirements, (e.g., target right of a green landmark in Task 1 and left of a blue landmark in Task 2), then a strong decrement on Test 2 was found (retroactive interference effect). When response competition was minimised during training or testing, however, the decrement on Test 2 was small or nonexistent. The results implicate response competition as a major contributor to the retroactive interference effect. The honeybee seems to hold on to memories; new memories do not wipe out old ones.     

Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words

We present data from four experiments using cross-modal priming to examine the effects of competitor environment on lexical activation during the time course of the perception of a spoken word. The research is conducted from the perspective of a distributed model of speech perception and lexical representation, which focuses on activation at the level of lexical content. In this model, the strength of competition between simultaneously active lexical items depends on the degree of coherence between their distributed semantic and phonological representations. Consistent with this model, interference effects are more complete when the purely semantic aspects of these coactive representations are probed (using semantic priming) than when phonological aspects are probed as well (using repetition priming).     

结果冲突与作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响

运用单作业和双作业操作探讨结果冲突与作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响。结果表明：（１）信息干扰对双作业操作有着明显的影响。信息干扰越大,结果冲突效应越大,双作业操作绩效越差。（２）作业难度对双作业绩效有明显影响。作业难度越大,双作业操作绩效越差。根据实验结果,本研究提出了双因素假设：信息干扰和资源竞争是影响双作业操作绩效的两个主要因素。     

Shortcomings of the behavioral competition theory of contrast: Reanalysis of McLean (1992)

McLean (1992) presented significant data showing that the occurrence of behavioral contrast in a multiple schedule was correlated with shifts in the frequency of reinforcers from a second source between components of the schedule, and interpreted his results as showing that contrast was due to changes in the degree of response competition within the constant component of the multiple schedule. Reanalysis of his data shows that there was an effect of reinforcement in the alternative component of the schedule independent of the shifts in reinforcers between components. Thus, the effect of relative rate of reinforcement cannot be ascribed, at least entirely, to the mechanisms proposed by the behavioral competition theory of contrast.     

Some conditions affecting the choice to cooperate or compete

Three experiments investigated conditions affecting the choice to cooperate or compete. Experiment I compared the effects first of an individual activity, then of a competitive task as an alternative to cooperation. For both comparisons, subjects could earn more by cooperating. Choice of competition, but not individual activity, was found to depend on the task choice contingencies. Competition predominated when both subjects could compete if either or both chose competition. Previously competitive pairs cooperated when both subjects could cooperate if either or both chose cooperation. Experiment II investigated the effects of differences in magnitude of the reinforcers for cooperating or competing. Choice between the two alternatives was manipulated in all pairs by varying reinforcer difference. Competition was chosen over cooperation only within the limits within which competition was potentially profitable. Experiment III replicated the findings of Experiment II using triads. Subjects in triads, however, were more likely to withdraw from the experiment. Thus, the data for pairs and triads suggest an orderly relation between reinforcer difference for cooperating or competing and task choice. Motivation of subjects to maximize relative gain by competing can be overridden by moderate reinforcer differences favoring cooperation.     

Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: competition requires more responding

Two pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching-to-sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed-ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.     

Assessing the role of alternative response rates and reinforcer rates in resistance to extinction of target responding when combining stimuli

Studies of behavioral momentum reveal that reinforcing an alternative response in the presence of a target response reduces the rate of target responding but increases its persistence, relative to training the target response on its own. Because of the parallels between these studies and differential‐reinforcement techniques to reduce problem behavior in clinical settings, alternative techniques to reduce problem behavior without enhancing its persistence are being explored. One potential solution is to train an alternative response in a separate stimulus context from problem behavior before combining the alternative stimulus with the target stimulus. The present study assessed how differences in reinforcement contingencies and rate for alternative responding influenced resistance to extinction of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli in pigeons. Across three experiments, alternative stimuli signaling a response–reinforcer dependency and greater reinforcer rates more effectively decreased the persistence of target responding when combining alternative and target stimuli within the same extinction tests, but not when compared across separate extinction tests. Overall, these findings reveal that differences in competition between alternative and target responding produced by contingencies of alternative reinforcement could influence the effectiveness of treating problem behavior through combining stimulus contexts.